Another great argument is that people overwhelmingly voted for a marriage ammendment defining marriage between man and woman.

Marriage is a legal union between two people who want to make a commitment to each other. Why shouldn't those who want to commit themselves to someone of the same sex not benefit from the things married people get.

Yes, I agree. Slavery was tradition, too. Doesn't make it right.

To argue this point is, I'm sorry, profoundly stupid. To make a quick point: tradition in this sense means societal traditions, not the me and my grand-pappy down by the 'ol fishinhole sort of tradition. Traditions are basically what people did in the past- the beliefs, norms, and actions of people who are not us. People that don't have the knowledge about the world that these modern times afford. It's to say when people were less knowledgable about these things then we are today, they did this and therefore we should do it as well. This is obviously not what people are really trying to convey because,beyond having no reason or basis, it is stupid. This is not to say that anything that same before our times is worthless- only that its worth does not lie in the fact that it came before our time. Finally, there is no reasonable argument, that I have ever heard, that allowing homosexual marraige would damage the ability of Men and Women to marry. What I mean is that men and women can still marry in the traditional sense, right? So then it would have to be a tradition of exclusion- in other words the Tradition means: That which marriage is not- it only means a negative in this way. Considering this misappropriation of tradition there must be reasons for keeping gay marraige on the All thing marraige are not list. Those reasons are the true meat of the matter, this nonsense of traditional is simply a stooge and easily cleared away from any meaningful debate on the subject.

One variation of this argument I've heard goes something like this: we recognize marriage between a man and a woman so that society can help accomodate new families. I think there's actually a good point lurking in here. Tax deductions for children is a good example of assistance for families that have already gotten started, but what about newlyweds who are trying to save up before buying a home and having their first kid? Back when marriage was soon followed by kids, and when most people got married only once, this would be a good legal status for granting certain benefits. However, this correlation is much weaker than it once was. My conclusion: if you don't want gays to receive benefits intended for families, just becaus they're married, find different vehicles to use than the umbrella of marriage. Like some sort of tax-exempt savings accounts that can be used for home purchases or childrens' educations or something. This deals not only with diverting resources intended for families from childless gay couples, but also childless heterosexual couples.

Well, burn me at the stake but, the only thing that will ever make sense to me is one man and one woman. I dont base my thinking on man-made traditions I base it on Biblical principal and authority. And, in my own belief system this overrules anything else. But, before you light that match you might consider that I also dont give a flying fig what the law states or how it is changed in the future. I dont care any more than I would care about what church you attend, if you attend, if you believe in creation, evolution or that we were beamed in from a big silver disk in the sky. And Im about as interested in who people sleep with as I am in their personal bowel habits. I feel strongly that all tax paying citizens deserve the same rights and that a union means different things to different people. As a matter of fact, I think many (and way more than will admit) traditional couples havent got clue one as to what marriage means in the first place. So, I reserve the right to think and believe as I do and, as far as Im concerned, the same right should be extended to everyone else.

Marriage in its definition is the union between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is something else, Period! In my opinion Gods plan was for us procreate! You know...be fruitfull and multiply..that has nothing to do with gay relationships. Marriage is part of a grand plan for the human race, Homosexuality had not part in it, in fact it is a perversion of it.

Tradition is important, but a little common sense has to go hand in hand with it. At one point in time, we traditionally bought slaves to work in the fields. We traditionally only allowed whites to sit at the front of the bus. We traditionally put mentally handicapped people in insane asylums. Just because something is done traditionally doens't mean it's right or that it can't be changed.

Tradition encasulates all the things that a civilization has learned and not learned to a particular point. The native sagacity of any culture is affected by the principles upon which the traditions are built. Through vibrant deliberation civilizations learn from themselves by evaluating competing principles in a new light or in the context of newly discovered principles. To simply default always to tradition is foolish. Slavery was a brutal and evil tradition. So was segragation. To simply ignore tradition is even more foolish. As tradition pertains to this gay marriage discussion we must understand that the inherent natural law principles that influence our traditions and institutions have developed for a reason. The best way to sustain a fruitful society is through the promotion of the two parent family unit. Our positive institutions function best when they are in equal concert to our natural process. To deny those traditions in favor of some anarchic individualistic notion of freedom founded on the concept of human autonomy is devastating in its implications. Should we always default to tradition- of course not. Should we consistently question ourselves- of course. But should we toss out our principles and institutions to serve the capricious will of perverted minority? No we shouldn't.

While tradition is not necessarily a bad thing, it cannot serve as a solid argument against the legalization of gay marriage. Tradition, unfortunately, also dictates that the parents choose the mates for their children. I don't know about you guys, but for most people I know, we'd be pretty unhappy if our folks chose our spouses for us. To respond to a question like Why do we do things this way? with Because it's just how it was always done just isn't a good enough argument.

The only issue when it comes to gay marriage and the only one that I have come to agree with. Marriage itself in the context has always been one man and one woman. If we changed the definition of marriage to a union of love, that would be a total disaster. People could claim to be in a union of love with animals. Or how about a 3 or 4 way marriage? Marriage must be man and woman. The problem comes with the legal rights and benefits when it comes to marriage. There is absolutely NO reason why a gay couple should not be entitled to the benefits and rights of being married. The perfect compromise to this issue is with civil unions. Gays could recieve equal protection under the law and marriage would remain man and woman. The problem is that civil unions are disliked by both sides, since both sides are largely made up of agenda fanatics. Compromise is the only way this will ever be resolved.

throughout time we've had many traditions that we've realized needed to be changed and changed them. quite frankly i think in twenty/thirty years when the anti-gay marriage majority is too old to be heard the change will be made and we'll look back on this wondering how there was ever a question, kind of like how i look at the civil rights movement now.

Let the gays get married. Then they will see for themselves it isn't as grown-up and fun as it looks! I'm sorry. I don't want to have to explain to my kid why Jimmy down the street has two Dads! It's bad enough I have to explain why the MiLF in the Levitra TV ad is talking about jumping a nut and giving her old man the ride of his life!

Marriage is a sacred institution given to us by God. Genesis 2:24 states, Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Yes it has. And I guess this gets to the crux of conservatism versus liberalism - conservatives being resistant to change, and liberals being more open to it. I'm all for not changing the things that make sense, and that are working. But I see this as a case where millions of Americans are not receiving the same legal protection as the majority, and the more than 1,000 financial benefits that are associated with the institution of marriage. It just makes me uncomfortable to a see a group of Americans so shafted. It sort of seems like taxation without representation. So I think this aspect of society / the law needs to be changed.